2016 QCCQ 6760, 2016 QCCQ 6760

Salehi c. Laferrière Gravel et Associés Notaires 2016 QCCQ 6760 JH5371 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL No: 500-32-141179-137 500-32-141176-133 DATE: July 19, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SCOTT HUGHES, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ 500-32-141179-137 FARHAD SALEHI -and- ANICK BÉRARD Plaintiffs v. LAFERRIÈRE GRAVEL ET ASSOCIÉS NOTAIRES Defendants ______________________________________________________________________ 500-32-141176-133 FARHAD SALEHI -and- ANICK BÉRARD Plaintiffs JOHANNE TURENNE -and- CHARLES ALEXANDER Defendants

JUDGMENT ON APPLICATIONS FOR REVOCATION OF JUDGMENT ( Articles 568 and 345 C.C.P. ) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Farhad Salehi and Anick Bérard («Plaintiffs») present an application for revocation of a judgment rendered by a judge of this Court sitting in Small Claims Division who dismissed, for cause of prescription, their application in damages for professional responsibility against Laferrière Gravel et Associés, notaires. [ 2 ] Plaintiffs present a second similar motion since their application against Johanne Turenne and Charles Alexander («Vendors») based on legal warranty in regard of the purchase of their home was also dismissed for cause of prescription. [ 3 ] The two cases were heard together at trial, as were these applications.

This judgment applies to both. [ 4 ] Plaintiffs argue that the trial judge erred in calculating the legal delays and that their application in damages was not prescribed. Revocation of a judgment [ 5 ] The Court must decide at this stage whether or not the grounds invoked appear sufficient for revocation. The "new" Code of Civil Procedure [1] states: 568.

An application for revocation of the judgment must include an affidavit setting out the grounds on which the application is based and the revocation is sought, and be filed with the court office within 30 day after the party becomes aware of the judgment, but not more than six months after the date of the judgment, these being strict time limits.

If, on the face of the record, the grounds appear sufficient, the court may stay forces execution of the judgment; the court clerk then summons the parties so that they may be heard on the application for revocation and, if applicable, on the merits of the dispute. [ 6 ] The grounds that must be applied in this case are those set out in

article 345, paragraph 1 C.C.P. : 345. A judgment may, on a party’s application, be revoked by the court that rendered it if letting the judgment stand would tend to bring the administration of justice into disrepute . The judgment may be revoked, for instance, if fraud was committed by another party, if the judgment was based on false exhibits or if the production of decisive exhibits was prevented by superior force or by the act or omission of another party.

As well, a judgment may be revoked if (1) the judgment adjudicated beyond the conclusions set out in the application or did not rule on one of them; (2) no valid defence was produced in support of the rights of a minor or of a person of full age under tutorship or curatorship or for whom a protection mandate has been homologated; (3) a ruling was made on the basis of invalid consent or following an unauthorized tender that was subsequently disavowed; or (4) evidence was subsequently discovered that would probably have led to a different judgment if the party concerned or its lawyer had become aware of that evidence in sufficient time, although they acted with due diligence. (emphasis added) No appeal of judgments of the Small Claims Division [ 7 ] The Court must keep in mind that judgments of the Small Claims Division are final.

There can be no appeal. These judgments can be contested only by way of judicial review.

Article 564 C.C.P. states: 564. The judgment cannot be appealed. A judgment or proceeding relating to a small claim is not open to judicial review except on the grounds of lack or excess of jurisdiction. [ 8 ] Judicial review is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Superior Court. Such judicial review can be granted only "on the grounds of lack or excess of jurisdiction".

Typically, the Superior Court exercises great deference for judgments of the Small Claims Division: « [24] En la présente instance, une analyse des dispositions applicables au recouvrement des petites créances (art. 953 et suivants C.p.c. ) révèle que les décisions de la division des petites créances ne peuvent faire l’objet d’un appel devant la Cour d’appel ou de la Cour supérieure (art. 980 C.p.c.), que la requête en révision judiciaire en vertu de l’art. 846 C.p.c. est exclue (art. 997 C.p.c.), que les décisions sont rendues par des magistrats exerçant leurs fonctions à temps plein, que les réclamations qui y sont soumises sont de peu d’importance (3 000 $ et moins), que la procédure suivie est très simplifiée (réclamation par voie de requête, non-obligation de faire une contestation écrite formelle), que la conduite de l’enquête relève du juge et non des parties (art. 976 C.p.c.) et que la présence des avocats y est exclue (art. 955 C.p.c.).

Tous ces éléments considérés dans le cadre d’une analyse pragmatique et fonctionnelle sont indicatifs de la volonté du législateur de mettre en place quant au recouvrement des créances de peu d’importances, un mécanisme facilement accessible, peu coûteux et rapide, dont les décisions sont finales .

[25] Le respect de cette volonté commande une très grande déférence de la part de la Cour supérieure à l’égard des décisions rendues par la division des petites créances. En somme, la Cour supérieure ne doit intervenir que si elle conclut au défaut ou à l’excès de compétence (…). [2] [References omitted, emphasis added] [ 9 ] The rules of prescription fall entirely within the jurisdiction of the Division. An error of the sort alleged here must be viewed by the Superior Court to be unreasonable in order to meet the required criterion [3] .

This is a difficult test to meet. [ 10 ] Plaintiffs have chosen not to make applications for judicial review before the Superior Court. They do not contend that the judgments of the Small Claims Division were "unreasonable". Errors in law [ 11 ] Clearly, errors in law did not justify revocation under the "old" C.C.P. [4] This rule has been maintained under

article 345 of the present C.C.P. as stated by Professor Denis Ferland: 2-78 – Le recours aux tribunaux a pour objet principal d'établir et de maintenir la stabilité dans les rapports juridiques entre justiciables; le principe de l'irrévocabilité des jugements constitue l'un des fondements de cette stabilité et il est essentiel à la bonne administration de la justice. 2-79 – La Cour d'appel rappelait ce principe dans les termes suivants : Motions for revocation are an exception to the well established and important rules protecting the finality and the stability of civil judgments.

They are not meant to relitigate issues already decided by a court, because a litigant disagrees with the judgment.

A judgment is not null because a party thinks it rests on an inaccurate statement of the law or a misinterpretation of the facts . 2-80 – Ainsi, la rétractation d'un jugement ne peut être demandée que pour des motifs énoncés par le Code, et une demande de rétractation de jugement ne saurait être une demande de reconsidération d'un jugement erroné, car cette fonction est réservée à la Cour d'appel ou à la Cour suprême, dans le cadre de leur compétence de réformation des jugements. [5] (emphasis added, notes omitted) Disrepute of the administration of justice? [ 12 ] In their application, Plantiffs invoke the first sentence of

article 345 and claim that not revoking the judgment in this case «would tend to bring the administration of justice into disrepute». [ 13 ] Is this correct? [ 14 ] The expression used in the C.C.P. is commonly used in criminal law involving paragraph 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [6] . [ 15 ] Similar wording is found in civil legislation, in particular at

article 2858 C.C.Q.: 2858. The court shall, even of its own motion, reject any evidence obtained under such circumstances that fundamental rights and freedoms are violated and whose use would tend to bring the administration of justice into disrepute . (emphasis added) [ 16 ] However, the courts must be prudent when construing civil legislation with reasoning imported from criminal law. The Court of appeal has stated: Les critères qui entrent en ligne de compte doivent exclusivement demeurer ceux du droit civil.

Certes, on peut se référer à ceux qui ont été élaborés dans le cadre du procès criminel, mais ils ne peuvent constituer, à mon avis, qu'une source indirecte d'information. Ils ne sont ni applicables, ni transposables tels quels. Les tribunaux civils doivent être particulièrement prudents à cet égard, puisque les exigences spécifiques du droit criminel quant à l'équité du procès n'ont aucune commune mesure avec celles du procès civil, les enjeux et la philosophie de ces deux ordres juridiques n'étant pas les mêmes (voir à cet égard, les arrêts de notre Cour dans Ville de Mascouche c.

Houle , C.A.M. n o 500-09-005984-976 du 5 août 1999 et aussi Société Radio anada c. Courtemanche , C.A.M. n o 500- 09- 007456-981 du 7 juillet 1999). [7] (emphasis added) [ 17 ] As well, Justice Gendreau described how to evaluate, in civil litigation the notion of " bringing administration of justice into disrepute " : En résumé, même si la recherche de la vérité est l'objet du procès criminel et civil, les différences fondamentales dans la conduite de l'un et l'autre rendent l'admissibilité beaucoup plus aisée au procès civil .

Cela découle, spécialement, de ce que l'équité du procès, une norme suivant laquelle l'accusé a droit au silence, peut décider de ne pas témoigner, et que l'on ne peut le mobiliser contre lui-même tant au

procès qu'au moment de l'enquête conduite par les représentants de l'État, ne s'applique pas au procès civil, où la règle est inversée: les parties témoignent et peuvent y être contraintes tant à l'occasion d'interrogatoires avant procès que devant le tribunal, ne peuvent refuser de répondre à toute question pertinente et doivent donner copie à l'adversaire et, plus tard, apporter à la Cour toute pièce utile. Le juge du procès civil est convié à un exercice de proportionnalité entre deux valeurs: le respect des droits fondamentaux d'une part et la recherche de la vérité d'autre part.

Il lui faudra donc répondre à la question suivante: La gravité de la violation aux droits fondamentaux, tant en raison de sa nature, de son objet, de la motivation et de l'intérêt juridique de l'auteur de la contravention que des modalités de sa réalisation, est-elle telle qu'il serait inacceptable qu'une cour de justice autorise la

partie qui l'a obtenue de s'en servir pour faire valoir ses intérêts privés? Exercice difficile s'il en est, qui doit prendre appui sur les faits du dossier. Chaque cas doit donc êtreenvisagé individuellement.

Mais, en dernière analyse, si le juge se convainc que la preuve obtenue en contravention aux droits fondamentaux constitue un abus du système de justice parce que sans justification juridique véritable et suffisante, il devrait rejeter la preuve. [8] (emphasis added) [ 18 ] Although the rights of litigants in civil cases are undoubtedly important, the dangers of wrongfully convicting someone of a criminal offence justifies a more strict application in criminal law.

Such is not the case in civil law. [ 19 ] The demonstration of "bringing the administration of justice into disrepute" requires proving a serious breach of rights, typically a breach of a fundamental right protected by either the Quebec or Canadian Charters . [ 20 ]

Article 345 paragraph 1 C.C.P. provides examples of this sort of serious act that must be proven to cause "disrepute": "if fraud was committed by an other party"; "if the judgment was based on false exhibits"; "if the production of decisive exhibits was prevented by superior force or by the act or omission of another party ". These examples each point toward an abuse of some sort committed by the opposing party. [ 21 ] Although the notion of "bringing administration of justice into disrepute" is open to

interpretation, clearly, the legislator has indicated that such a conclusion is not to be taken lightly. It is a difficult test to meet.

Decision [ 22 ] To sum up: - no appeal is allowed from the Small Claims Division to correct allegedly unfounded judgments; - an error in law does not justify revocation of a judgment of a Small Claims Court; - to obtain judicial review of a judgment of the Small Claims Division, the Superior Court must be convinced that the error is "unreasonable"; - disrepute of justice typically requires an "abuse" of some sort. [ 23 ] The legislator has chosen to make judgments of the Small Claims Division final and whenever contestation is allowed, the test is extremely difficult to meet. [ 24 ] Plaintiffs here allege nothing more than a miscalculation of delays of prescription by the first judge. [ 25 ] This is exactly the type of error that is normally argued before the Court of Appeal when an appeal exists of right or by leave.

The legislator has specifically stated that no such appeal exists in this case. This clear and well understood rule has been maintained under

article 564 C.C.P . [ 26 ] In view of this, the alleged error in the judgments of the trial judge, on the face of the record, cannot be sufficient to constitute "disrepute of the administration of justice". Concluding as Plaintiffs propose would mean that the rule contained in

article 564 C.C.P. would not longer have any meaning. In this case, the result would be that Plaintiffs’ applications will have become appeals disguised as revocation. [ 27 ] The Court needs not describe all the situations which might "bring the administration of justice into disrepute". It is sufficient to conclude that this is not one of them. [ 28 ] As well, the Court needs not give any opinion as to whether or not there was indeed an error in the calculation of delays of prescription. In these cases the Court concludes that, "on the face of the record, the grounds of revocation do not appear sufficient".

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: DISMISSES the application for revocation of judgment in both files 500-32-141179-137 and 500-32-141176-133; WITHOUT COSTS . __________________________________ SCOTT HUGHES, J.C.Q.

Date of hearing: April 20,2016 [6] 24. […]

(2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter , the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.